copper facing manslaughter charge over g20 death

[Combustible]

If anyone other than the police launches an unprovoked attack on someone and they die, it's called murder.

No. For example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7839466.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7832016.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7623112.stm

In the last 2 cases murder charges were made and then dropped presumably because they wouldn't get a murder conviction.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Actually, thinking about it, on current evidence the manslaughter charge won't stand up.

The reason is that (as I understand it) there is evidence of Mr Tomlinson being pushed over before the videoed incident, by other officers: but those officers have not been identified. So you have a situation not wholly unlike the business with the log book alterations in the de Menezes case, where it's clear that something happened but it's impossible to say precisely who, of a small group of people, actually did it.

Of course the same problem would exist even if the alleged earlier assailants were identified.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Why does Cobble hate the people and love the pig so much that he is willing to ignore all overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what he is saying, and presume melifluous intent on behalf of a grieving family?

Sorry to be tangental and pedantic, but pigs are highly intelligent creatures which suffer en masse and needlessly for human appetites.

The police are not "pigs", "filth" or "criminal scum" are are more accurate.

 

[Lakina]

Jesus, unbelievable. How could the first autopsy have been so wrong? The whole thing looks so dodgy now.

 

[Cobbles]

It appears they were wise to. Why are you more concerned with slurring the victim and family rather than focussing on systemic crime in the police force?

No reason why the accused shouldn't order a third post mortem, in fact, why not keep on going until we get the right result.

I can't understand the interview under caution flowing from the second post mortem, after all, internal bleeding is relatively common amongst people with a long history of alcohol abuse.

 

[Cobbles]

a grieving family?

He was estranged for a decade, living in a homeless hostel as opposed to the bosom of his loving family and now they pop out of the undergrowth blubbering into their hankies - bless.......

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

No reason why the accused shouldn't order a third post mortem, in fact, why not keep on going until we get the right result.

The first one had form, as do you, as an apologist muppet.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Are you seriously saying being violently assaulted minutes before wouldn't be what you'd pin his heamorrage on?

 

[butchersapron]

The first one had form, as do you, as an apologist muppet.

Ignore him please.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You must be so proud of yourself.

 

[cesare]

"Lawyers for the family said the new post-mortem test raised the likelihood of a manslaughter charge."

it's wonderful what a bit of no-win-no-fee litigation can fuel. No doubt all of his caring extended family who have been constantly at his side supporting him through his battle with alcolohism (maybe not....) will be delighted if justice is done (e.g. compensation cheques are in the post).

Heh Time was you used to be a decent troll and could get a rise. A laugh is all you get nowadays

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Are you seriously saying being violently assaulted minutes before wouldn't be what you'd pin his heamorrage on?

The point is that if there had been other assaults there would be too much doubt in a jury's mind.

 

[cesare]

He was estranged for a decade, living in a homeless hostel as opposed to the bosom of his loving family and now they pop out of the undergrowth blubbering into their hankies - bless.......

Keep em coming lol

 

[bluestreak]

Why does Cobble hate the people and love the pig so much that he is willing to ignore all overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what he is saying, and presume melifluous intent on behalf of a grieving family?

because he's a sad case who only gets a hard on winding up people on here. ignore him.

 

[nick h.]

Why have this thread when we've already got a long-running one about getting to the truth of Tomlinson's death?

 

[DotCommunist]

Why have this thread when we've already got a long-running one about getting to the truth of Tomlinson's death?

we can leave this one for Cobbles desperate sad trolling then

 

[cesare]

we can leave this one for Cobbles desperate sad trolling then

He's a Bernard Manning-alike laugh a minute

 

[Intastella]

Aren't there some pics floating about of him being shoved against a wall about 1 1/2 hours previous to him being shoved over? He was in a riot vans way so a couple of coppers went and manhandled him out of the way i think...

 

[cesare]

Aren't there some pics floating about of him being shoved against a wall about 1 1/2 hours previous to him being shoved over? He was in a riot vans way so a couple of coppers went and manhandled him out of the way i think...

Yeah there's loads of stuff on the main thread.

 

[lostexpectation]

maybe its not this police officer at that time that caused the fatal injury if at all, he came up against police activity several times

 

[Grandma Death]

He was estranged for a decade, living in a homeless hostel as opposed to the bosom of his loving family and now they pop out of the undergrowth blubbering into their hankies - bless.......

Oh do fuck off there's a good boy.

 

[ymu]

Funny how nobody questioned whether this was murder or not.

The article says 'beaten to death', which is not incorrect, but the truth is that he was pushed over and died from injuries resulting from banging his head on the ground.

If anyone other than the police launches an unprovoked attack on someone and they die, it's called murder.

In cases like this, I understand that there would normally be a murder charge, even if the CPS thought only manslaughter would stick. I'm paraphrasing detective-boy from a different thread (and topic) - I'll try and dig out the post later.

Aren't there some pics floating about of him being shoved against a wall about 1 1/2 hours previous to him being shoved over? He was in a riot vans way so a couple of coppers went and manhandled him out of the way i think...

Half an hour previously - the original pictures had a GMT time-stamp. Other pics and the CCTV confirm that it occurred around 7pm.

The Sun ran a whole series of pics. These are the relevant ones:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece

 

[ymu]

OK. Here's d-b's stuff on murder/manslaughter from this thread.

As is often the case with the law, precision is important. Routine and not uncommon are NOT the same thing at all.

It is NOT routine to charge murder if all the evidence shows that there is no intent (or, at least, that there is insufficient on which a conviction is more likely than not - the CPS's "evidential sufficiency" standard).

It is not uncommon though, where the defence have not provided an account, for it to be charged (on the basis of the thus far uncontested witness / scientific / etc. evidence) even though the investigators believe that there may well be a defence account which will make it manslaughter (or even less). This is often the case where the defence have chosen not to provide the police with an account in interview - the police might guess what the defendant will say at court (they may even have been told off the record), but they can't make decisions on that basis. It is the dilemma for a suspect in police custody - staying silent in interview may be the long-term best advice ... but it may mean that you end up spending months on remand for a serious charge when giving your account may convince the police / CPS that it was an accident / it was self-defence or whatever your defence is ...

(NB: I have absolutely no knowledge whether or not the driver provided any account to police in this case - the above discussion is about hypothetical / other cases, not this one specifically).

As I posted on another thread before seeing this one had been bumped:

For murder there has to be an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. For manslaughter there has to be an unlawful act which kills (i.e. there does not need to be that intention).

It is not unusual in cases where the evidence is more likely to end up as a manslaughter conviction to be charged as murder initially (a Court can always reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter, it cannot do the opposite), although in this case, where there has been some significant time to get all the evidence sorted out and reviewed by the CPS in detail, it would be usual for the charge to reflect the outcome genuinely supported by the evidence.

I have not seen anything which suggests whether the driver has given any account in interviews. If he has not then this charge would not be surprising if there is any suggestion from witnesses / scene examination / CCTV that he has deliberately collided with Naomi the police and CPS will pursue the case to the Courts, with a murder charge, as that is the only place where the driver can be forced to provide any explanation they wish to or face the consequences. It is not the role of the police/CPS to second guess what the defendant may say in their defence.

Do not be surprised if this does end up as manslaughter or a total acquittal at Court, especially if there is a defence which has not been heard yet.

 

[Azrael]

This case might make some more people question the use of the CPS and their absurdly high charging tests. All that should be needed is enough evidence for a prima facie case to be launched. For those calling for a murder trial, returning to the pre-1985 system, or something similar, would make it more likely.

 

[ymu]

Heh heh. ITV News at Ten said the cop was "being questioned under suspicion of killing him". Even they think manslaughter is too weak.

 

[Azrael]

To be fair, that's a definition of manslaughter; it's just that the officer doesn't have the intent necessary for murder. I wouldn't call manslaughter a weak charge: the maximum sentence is life.

 

[ymu]

I think you can argue intent. Enough to have it argued in court, anyway.

Why would an officer conceal his shoulder number unless he intended to commit wrongdoing? What sort of wrongdoing might a specialist riot cop get up to?

Did he intend to hurt Tomlinson when he hit him with the baton for no reason whatsoever? It wasn't to restrain him. It wasn't in self-defence. When he pushed him over and then wandered off, having no interest in arresting or cautioning his target? What exactly was the intent if not to harm?

And what of Anna Branthwaite's testimony, that he had earlier been pushed over, hit twice with a baton whilst on the ground around the abdomen and/or upper thighs, pushed over again and then shoved down the street. Was the intention to cause him harm? And if not, what?

This story is one of a sustained beating given to a completely innocent man over a prolonged period of time, witnessed by at least a dozen officers and possibly administered by more than one.

Intent should be argued in court. Like it would if anyone but a copper had been filmed committing this assault.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I hope discussion of this soon becomes sub-judice in that he is charged ASAP.

 

[Azrael]

Did he intend to hurt Tomlinson when he hit him with the baton for no reason whatsoever?

Intent to hurt isn't enough for murder though: intent to commit GBH is needed.

If the officer's being interviewed for manslaughter it seems that the CPS or whoever's responsible has decided there is insufficient evidence for intent to commit GBH. Can't know for sure, of course, but it sounds reasonable.

 

[Skimix]

To be honest it didnt look that bad to me, I've been battered far worse than that by the old bill at football and anyone who was there was looking for it to be honest...